AlBore's Inconvenient Lies

[Jay]

Fixing implies there is some critical point. It's either broke in your case or it isn't, which is a pile. It's more like an automobile. You could drive the thing without any maintenance until it breaks down, or you can take measures to ensure the machine runs well.

Thank you Tonington, but I don't think the "automobile" is the best example in this circumstance. I mean we didn't invent the universe but the car we can take credit for.

The issue of God is lame and totally out of context. There is no proof for or against God, you either believe or you don't. Climate is either warming or it isn't. That we can say for sure. Either CO2 increases heat retention or it doesn't. That we can say for sure. Either humans are major contributor or we aren't. The certainty on that has been increasing.

And no, Tonington, the issue of God, isn't "lame" thank you though, and it is well within context.

Maybe you just don't see it...maybe others will?

 

[Tonington]

Thank you Tonington, but I don't think the "automobile" is the best example in this circumstance. I mean we didn't invent the universe but the car we can take credit for.



And no, Tonington, the issue of God isn't "lame" thank you though, and it is well within context.

Maybe you just don't see it...maybe others will?

Of course we can't fix the universe, I don't see how that's relevant at all. We can "fix" our behaviours, which is at the heart of the matter. I use the car because it is like our problem. A car isn't a simple broke or not, and we do maintain it to ensure it runs well. The climate system isn't polar, like broke or not and we can maintain at least our part.

I don't mean God is lame, I mean comparing God to this situation is lame. Though I guess that requires qualifying. Some would say there is proof for God, I say there isn't it. That proof is subjective and cognitive. Climate change affected by humans happens or it does not. There is no subjectivity to it. A molecule doesn't choose whethor or not to react, it follows laws. Those laws dictate how it behaves and reacts, whereas believing in God or not believing in God does not have a set of laws.

 

[CDNBear]

The issue of God is lame and totally out of context. There is no proof for or against God, you either believe or you don't.

So say you Ton, there's about a billion people out there that would totally dissagree with you.

Seeing as the pro AGW crowd seems to use numbers (of scientists on the Koolaid junket) to bolster their position.

Then in the case of God, the numbers merit respect.

 

[Tonington]

I know people will disagree with me on the God issue. There is really nothing a believer can say to me that would change my views and the same is true for the converse of that. Can I show them proof God doesn't exist? Nope. Can they show me proof God does exist? Nope. God is an issue of faith, which does not rely on physical proof or evidence.

I'm not arguing against the existance of God. I'm saying that comparing faith in God to faith in global warming science isn't comparable. Jay says:

just because we on the right think there is a God deosn't mean there is one...

and I agree.

One situation where I would agree with religious comparisons is the methods by which the people on forums and in the media argue the issue. How often is it that anyone actually says, here is why I think this is wrong, and then explain it. Very rare. Much more common is the rush to find some paper or media piece which agrees with their position. It's like dredging up bible quotes to support the case. I've seen many appeals to authority, and that is true for both sides. The rush to find the messiah with the answer.

It's not that I don't respect the God believers. I plan to bring my kids to church so they can make an informed decision themselves.

 

[CDNBear]

I know people will disagree with me on the God issue. There is really nothing a believer can say to me that would change my views and the same is true for the converse of that. Can I show them proof God doesn't exist? Nope. Can they show me proof God does exist? Nope. God is an issue of faith, which does not rely on physical proof or evidence.

I'm not arguing against the existance of God. I'm saying that comparing faith in God to faith in global warming science isn't comparable. Jay says:

just because we on the right think there is a God deosn't mean there is one...

and I agree.

One situation where I would agree with religious comparisons is the methods by which the people on forums and in the media argue the issue. How often is it that anyone actually says, here is why I think this is wrong, and then explain it. Very rare. Much more common is the rush to find some paper or media piece which agrees with their position. It's like dredging up bible quotes to support the case. I've seen many appeals to authority, and that is true for both sides. The rush to find the messiah with the answer.

It's not that I don't respect the God believers. I plan to bring my kids to church so they can make an informed decision themselves.

And since I am no scientist, my belief in one theory or the other would have to be based on my faith that I am getting the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth right?

Since the pro AGW side has employed deception and out right lies, how am I to place my faith in them?

Since the anti AGW side has been funded by oil industries, how am I supposed to place my faith in them.

Since I have seen pro socialists supporting the Kyoto protocol, and GreenPeace activists supporting the anti AGW theory, I have to give some credence to the anti AGW crowd. I mean come on, the co-founder of Green Peace is an advocate of the anti AGW theory? That say a lot more to me, then the likes of someone that drives across Canada in a big old tour bus or someone that lies in his movie.

 

[Tonington]

And since I am no scientist, my belief in one theory or the other would have to be based on my faith that I am getting the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth right?

Since the pro AGW side has employed deception and out right lies, how am I to place my faith in them?

Since the anti AGW side has been funded by oil industries, how am I supposed to place my faith in them.

Since I have seen pro socialists supporting the Kyoto protocol, and GreenPeace activists supporting the anti AGW theory, I have to give some credence to the anti AGW crowd. I mean come on, the co-founder of Green Peace is an advocate of the anti AGW theory? That say a lot more to me, then the likes of someone that drives across Canada in a big old tour bus or someone that lies in his movie.

You don't need to be a scientist to accept either side. Faith as I said is without logical proof or physical evidence. I'm quite certain you have more than just faith guiding your position. I don't give any faith to what I have read. It either works or it doesn't. There is either proof or there isn't. That proof will change over the years and as it does so will my position.

Kyoto protocol is a policy. It's removed from the science, even though it is based on the science. It's flaws are not transferable to the science, it's flaws are a result of international policy and treaty.

It's inevitable that there would be people leading both sides of the debate. I could care less about their personal opinions or personal practices. I can't stress how much I wish people would read things themselves and make their own decisions rather than accepting the talking head's stance. It's like a horrible game of chinese telephone, that is the degrees of separation between the science and the Gore's and Chrichton's of the world.

My understanding is very basic, in strictly science terms. It's not my field, but I do understand the basics of the principles involved. When I don't unsderstand I go out and read some more. I'm an amateur. I don't expect everyone to follow it with the same passion I do, though I wish people would. Then we wouldn't be talking about whoever appeared on TV, what they do in their home and what they are actually doing or not doing.

 

[CDNBear]

You don't need to be a scientist to accept either side. Faith as I said is without logical proof or physical evidence. I'm quite certain you have more than just faith guiding your position. I don't give any faith to what I have read. It either works or it doesn't. There is either proof or there isn't. That proof will change over the years and as it does so will my position.

Kyoto protocol is a policy. It's removed from the science, even though it is based on the science. It's flaws are not transferable to the science, it's flaws are a result of international policy and treaty.

It's inevitable that there would be people leading both sides of the debate. I could care less about their personal opinions or personal practices. I can't stress how much I wish people would read things themselves and make their own decisions rather than accepting the talking head's stance. It's like a horrible game of chinese telephone, that is the degrees of separation between the science and the Gore's and Chrichton's of the world.

My understanding is very basic, in strictly science terms. It's not my field, but I do understand the basics of the principles involved. When I don't unsderstand I go out and read some more. I'm an amateur. I don't expect everyone to follow it with the same passion I do, though I wish people would. Then we wouldn't be talking about whoever appeared on TV, what they do in their home and what they are actually doing or not doing.

But Ton, there is a reason why news papers are printed with the vocab and education levels of a typical grade nine student. The masses are not all scientists.

We the merry unwashed masses must go on faith in those that would preach "drink the koolaid" or "don't drink the koolaid". We are not as well equiped as you are to decifer the facts or merits of one scientific paper over another.

Thus we have to have faith in those that would preach the yays or nays to us.

If we see failings in either of these groups, that will sway our faith, one way or the other. Those of us that weigh each example, each publication as it comes out, presented by those that claim to represent, that find fault or deception, have to question the presenter. If the presenter is not open to debate, or is unwilling to expand on what it is they preach, we must examine their wears more closely.

Upon closer examination, we find fault and evidence of intentionally misleading statements or misrepresented facts, what are we to believe? It is a matter of faith my friend and it's in short supply with me.

 

[Tonington]

I'm definitely guilty of preaching as you say. The entire reason for my rants and endless babbling is to try to show people, at least through my understanding, how many of the "facts" you say they accept through faith are not so cut and dry. Or so to speak to spit out the other coloured kool aid. I know people will disagree with that, and I'm really quite fine with that.

Do you want to really know what irks me about this? No matter if you follow this or that or the other lines out there, inside we all know what we are doing isn't right. Many of the people I've discussed this topic with have made changes in their behaviour, even if they don't agree with the human factor in climate change. You don't need any explanations from a Ph.D to tell you that using cleaner fuels is a good thing. You don't need Al Gore to tell you that for every action we perform there are reverberating reactions, consequences if you will. No one in their right mind believes we should pollute ad nauseum, willy nilly without a care in the world. Common sense is more valuable than 1000 papers pointing fingers. Common sense is better than drinking that kool aid.

What I'd really like to dive into is what pre-dispositions are brought into this mess. That's really what it is now, a great big mess. The message is polluted with political affiliations and it's polluted by fear mongering on both sides. Perhaps what is worst of all is our attention is being swallowed by the messengers who are framing the whole issue and cheapening the very wholistic notion that we've lost along the way. Being 'left' or 'right' shouldn't be a determinant in how we view the issue, but that time has long since past. I don't know how we can get back to that point, where we can all objectively evaluate where we are, what we are doing and why we have this preponderance to camp on the issues which really have nothing to do with the bigger picture.

I was pondering this just now on the walk back from the grocery store. Seems to me we're in desperate need of a modern Enlightenment, this rant can be applied to many of the other issues we all love to take up on these forum boards.

 

[CDNBear]

I'm definitely guilty of preaching as you say. The entire reason for my rants and endless babbling is to try to show people, at least through my understanding, how many of the "facts" you say they accept through faith are not so cut and dry. Or so to speak to spit out the other coloured kool aid. I know people will disagree with that, and I'm really quite fine with that.

Do you want to really know what irks me about this? No matter if you follow this or that or the other lines out there, inside we all know what we are doing isn't right. Many of the people I've discussed this topic with have made changes in their behaviour, even if they don't agree with the human factor in climate change. You don't need any explanations from a Ph.D to tell you that using cleaner fuels is a good thing. You don't need Al Gore to tell you that for every action we perform there are reverberating reactions, consequences if you will. No one in their right mind believes we should pollute ad nauseum, willy nilly without a care in the world. Common sense is more valuable than 1000 papers pointing fingers. Common sense is better than drinking that kool aid.

What I'd really like to dive into is what pre-dispositions are brought into this mess. That's really what it is now, a great big mess. The message is polluted with political affiliations and it's polluted by fear mongering on both sides. Perhaps what is worst of all is our attention is being swallowed by the messengers who are framing the whole issue and cheapening the very wholistic notion that we've lost along the way. Being 'left' or 'right' shouldn't be a determinant in how we view the issue, but that time has long since past. I don't know how we can get back to that point, where we can all objectively evaluate where we are, what we are doing and why we have this preponderance to camp on the issues which really have nothing to do with the bigger picture.

I was pondering this just now on the walk back from the grocery store. Seems to me we're in desperate need of a modern Enlightenment, this rant can be applied to many of the other issues we all love to take up on these forum boards.

And I agree, if you remember, you and I came to a concencus a while back. The environment needs our imediate attention and now.

I'm with you all the way, I as many others know full well we can not continue with "business as usual" and survive.

 

[Tonington]

I'd rather that consensus any day of the week. One fella who thinks AGW is happening, another who doesn't. Consensus that we need to change our practices. No science involved either, no rhetoric. Cheers to common sense Bear.

 

[CDNBear]

I'd rather that consensus any day of the week. One fella who thinks AGW is happening, another who doesn't. Consensus that we need to change our practices. No science involved either, no rhetoric. Cheers to common sense Bear.

Since I'm just a troll...

The AGW theory is just leftoid socialist Bullshyte. Made up to enslave the masses of uneducated and help formulate the new world order through credit schemes and forced weath transfer!!!

 

[Tonington]

The AGW theory is just leftoid socialist Bullshyte. Made up to enslave the masses of uneducated and help formulate the new world order through credit schemes and forced weath transfer!!!

The AGW deniers are radical right wing fascists, promoting the continued subjugation of poor nations through economic and corporate imperialism. The deniers are pawns of the Oil industry selling out to political interests to continue the authoritarian movement to control the common people and to maintain the economic prosperity enjoyed by few at the behest of the many.:wave:

 

[CDNBear]

The AGW deniers are radical right wing fascists, promoting the continued subjugation of poor nations through economic and corporate imperialism. The deniers are pawns of the Oil industry selling out to political interests to continue the authoritarian movement to control the common people and to maintain the economic prosperity enjoyed by few at the behest of the many.:wave:

So!!!???

Big biz is the muscles of the world, the oil is their blood, if we cut off the use of the oil, the whole thing comes to a communist halt.

I'ld rather be cooked by the sun and GHG's then be subjected to the socialists new world order!!!

Long live the SUV!!! Give me Hummers or give me death!!!

 

[Tonington]

So!!!???

Big biz is the muscles of the world, the oil is their blood, if we cut off the use of the oil, the whole thing comes to a communist halt.

I'ld rather be cooked by the sun and GHG's then be subjected to the socialists new world order!!!

Long live the SUV!!! Give me Hummers or give me death!!!

Ahh, a pawn to the bitter end. Be sure to tuck your extremities in when the gears of the machine start to grind ever faster.

You won't get death on that road, but hopefully you can drive without your arms and legs. When the blood oil runs dry you will serve as adequate fuel to feed the industrial monster.

 

[CDNBear]

Ahh, a pawn to the bitter end. Be sure to tuck your extremities in when the gears of the machine start to grind ever faster.

You won't get death on that road, but hopefully you can drive without your arms and legs. When the blood oil runs dry you will serve as adequate fuel to feed the industrial monster.

Oh puuuleeze, oil isn't in short supply, it's a renewable resource like trees. The myth that it's running out and the byproduct of decaying dino's is as old and ridiculous as those that once claimed brontosauras' had two brains.
It's value is grossly over rated and stretched by market manipulation, just a Debeors does with the diamond market.

Strawmen burn in the light of day you know.

 

[Tonington]

Oh puuuleeze, oil isn't in short supply, it's a renewable resource like trees. The myth that it's running out and the byproduct of decaying dino's is as old and ridiculous as those that once claimed brontosauras' had two brains.
It's value is grossly over rated and stretched by market manipulation, just a Debeors does with the diamond market.

Strawmen burn in the light of day you know.

I guess an oil shill would know....

True free enterprise has no monopolies, at least without the help of a corrupt regime. The oil industry can't gouge us with prices without government support. The government is in the pockets of Big oil, of course they will tell you that oil won't run out. They've been keeping the electric car locked up for years, until the oil is gone.

Seriously I don't know how much longer i can keep this up

 

[CDNBear]

I guess an oil shill would know....

True free enterprise has no monopolies, at least without the help of a corrupt regime. The oil industry can't gouge us with prices without government support. The government is in the pockets of Big oil, of course they will tell you that oil won't run out. They've been keeping the electric car locked up for years, until the oil is gone.

The last line of defence, you don't believe in the AGW theory, you must be an oil exec or shill.

Good call, I've been on Exxons payroll for years, or is that I've supported Exxons payroll for years.

Electric cars are a fad, give me a break, they are as useful as teats on a bull. Next you'll be telling me all about the big oil conspiracy to hide the car that runs on water.

Seriously I don't know how much longer i can keep this up

Suck it up buttercup. If I can pull watch all night after drinking my ass off, only to make sure the ugly masses of terrorists don't sneek in and kill us all, you can keep up the charade. lamo.

 

[I think not]

From day one, I have enjoyed every single post Tonington has made, whether or not I agree with him, he has the ability of conveying his thoughts respectfully. Keep it up Tonington.

 

[#juan]

Electric cars are a fad, give me a break, they are as useful as teats on a bull.

Electric cars will kill the internal combustion powered car one day soon.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.08/tesla.html

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=373

 

[s243a]

Electric cars will kill the internal combustion powered car one day soon.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.08/tesla.html

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=373

That actually sounds pretty good
"The trick? The Tesla Roadster is powered by 6,831 rechargeable lithium-ion batteries – the same cells that run a laptop computer. Range: 250 miles. Fuel efficiency: 1 to 2 cents per mile. Top speed: more than 130 mph. The first cars will be built at a factory in England and are slated to hit the market next summer. And Tesla Motors, Eberhard’s company, is already gearing up for a four-door battery-powered sedan."

But do the batteries keep that performance as they age? How many times can they be recharged? How does cold temperature effect battery performance? What does the car cost?